Matthew E. Kelly William Battaglia William W. Kerr Stan Bronson Stephen S. Kintner Nancy Christman Carl R. Larrabee, Jr., P.E. Anthony J.

Transcription

1 As of June 10, 2010 William Battaglia The Battaglia Group Stan Bronson Florida Earth Foundation Nancy Christman St. Johns River Water Management District Anthony J. Cotter GrayRobinson, P.A. Duane E. De Freese, Ph.D. AquaFiber Technologies Corporation Tom Drage Orange County Steven Duranceau, Ph.D. University of Central Florida Dykes C. Everett Dykes Everett & Company, Inc. Christianne C. Ferraro, P.E. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Stephen H. Flanagan Land Advisors Organization Gary D. Fries, P.E. Polk County Vivian F. Garfein State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Central District Kirby B. Green, III St. Johns River Water Management District Michael Herr Polk County David A. Hoot, P.E. Parsons Brinckerhoff Joel Ivey Ivey Planning Group, LLC Jeffrey Jones, AICP Osceola County Shannon R. Julien Environmental Services, Inc. Matthew E. Kelly Disney Resort Real Estate Development William W. Kerr BKI Inc. Consulting Ecologists Stephen S. Kintner Volusia County Environmental, retired Carl R. Larrabee, Jr., P.E. City of Cocoa Phil Laurien East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Charles Lee, Sr. Audubon of Florida Richard L. Levey, AICP Lake Nona Property Holdings, LLC David F. MacIntyre, P.E. Parsons Brinckerhoff Richard Martens Brevard County Stephen R. Miller, P.E. MSCW, Inc. David L. Moore, P.G. Southwest Florida Water Andrew Neff Seminole County Water James Payne Deseret Ranch Curtis Ramsey Goodwill Industries of Central Florida Teresa Remudo-Fries Orange County Utilities The Honorable Elaine Renick Lake County Commission H. Paul Senft, Jr. Haines City Economic Development Council John S. Shearer, P.E. Shearer Consulting, Inc. Robert D. Teegarden OUC - The Reliable One

2 Diane H. Trees, Ed.D. University of Central Florida Cecelia Weaver South Florida Water Management District Corinne M. Wells, REPA, LEP Osceola County Gregg Welstead Lake County Brian Wheeler Toho Water Authority Doug Yowell Progress Energy

3 Central Florida Coordination Area Planning Work Group Final Report Prepared by: St. Johns River Water Management District South Florida Water Management District Southwest Florida Water Management District January 2008

4 Contents Introduction... 2 The Planning Work Group... 2 Fulfillment of Objectives... 3 Appendix A Action Plan for CFCA Appendix B Public Water Use Projections Appendix C Alternative Water Supply Development Projects Appendix D Project Selection Process Appendix E Planning Work Group Stakeholder Meeting Summaries CFCA Final Report January

5 Introduction The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), hereinafter referred to as the districts, jointly concluded in 2006, that the availability of sustainable quantities of groundwater in central Florida is insufficient to meet future public water supply demands. In addition, the districts concluded that alternative water supply sources must be developed to meet increased demands in central Florida beyond The districts identified the Central Florida Coordination Area (CFCA, Figure 1) as the area for which a coordinated and consistent approach to addressing the identified water supply issues would be developed and implemented. The governing boards of the districts approved the Action Plan for the Central Florida Coordination Area (Action Plan, Appendix A) to guide such a coordinated and consistent approach. The region identified in Figure 1 of this summary report differs slightly from that in the CFCA Action Plan due to the removal of the City of Cocoa service area from the CFCA. The Planning Work Group The Planning Work Group (Group) is one of three work groups identified in the Action Plan. This work group consists of the following staff from the districts. South Florida Water Management District Henry Bittaker, Lead Planner Jim Harmon, Senior Supervising Hydrogeologist Jim Jackson, Senior Supervising Planner Pete Kwiatkowski, Division Director, Hydrologic Modeling Keith Smith, Deputy Dir, Water Supply Dept. Chris Sweazy, Lead Hydrogeologist St. Johns River Water Management District Don Brandes, Senior Project Manager Steve Brown, GIS Analyst II Terry Clark, StaffConnections, LLC Bill Dunn, Watershed Connections, Inc. Jim Gross, Senior Project Manager David Hornsby, Project Manager Ching-tzu Huang, Hydrologist IV Marc Minno, Supervising Regulatory Scientist Doug Munch, Division Director, Ground Water Programs Barbara Vergara, Division Director, Water Supply Management Hal Wilkening, Department Director, Resource Management CFCA Final Report January

6 Southwest Florida Water Management District Tammy Antoine, Staff Water Conservation Analyst Brian Armstrong, Water Supply and Resource Development Manager Mark Barcelo, Hydrologic Evaluation Manager Rand Frahm, Planning Manager Richard Owen, Deputy Executive Director, Division of Resource Regulation Kathy Scott, Conservation Projects Manager These staff members worked together to accomplish the Group s goal, objectives, and tasks described in the Action Plan. Members of the Group were assigned specific tasks and schedules necessary to accomplish required work. Coordination was performed through teleconferences and face-to-face meetings. SJRWMD provided the services of a project manager, Terry Clark, StaffConnections, LLC, to coordinate the activities of the Group and to assist in the management of stakeholder meetings. A total of nine Planning Group team meetings were held on the following dates: September 5, 2006 October 16, 2006 November 7, 2006 January 12, 2007 February 1, 2007 February 13, 2007 March 16, 2007 April 11, 2007 June 8, 2007 The Group s goal, as described in the Action Plan, is to identify alternative water supply development projects and implementation strategies that will assure the availability of sustainable water supplies to meet public supply needs in a timely manner through 2025 in the CFCA. Fulfillment of Objectives The Action Plan identifies seven objectives for fulfillment by the Planning Work Group. Following is a description of the work performed by the Group to address each of these objectives and the associated work products. It should be noted that, although the Planning Work Group has fulfilled its responsibilities pursuant to the Action Plan as described below, coordination among the three Districts in the CFCA continues to ensure all aspects of the Action Plan are ultimately achieved. CFCA Final Report January

7 Objective 1: Identify the need for alternative water supply projects The Action Plan identifies three tasks for performance by the Group in association with objective 1. Following is a description of the work performed in association with these tasks. Task 1A: Identify demand projections for all public water utilities and other categories of water use within the study area (including demand, timing and location). Each of the districts prepared demand projections for their respective portions of public water supply utility service areas in association with their respective water supply planning processes. This information was the basis of compiling water use projections for utilities in the CFCA that used at least.1 million gallons per day (mgd) in In addition the Group compiled water use projections for other water use categories based on information in the most current water supply assessments and regional water supply plans of the respective districts. Task 1B: Identify amount of future demands to be met by alternative water supplies (e.g., unmet by traditional groundwater) for each utility or other new water use. The Group agreed that the difference between projected 2013 water use and projected 2025 water use for each identified public water supply utility would represent the quantity of alternative water supplies needed by that utility through The Group further agreed that the total of these quantities would represent the total quantity of alternative water supplies needed to meet projected public water supply demands through 2025 in CFCA. Based on this approach, the Group concluded that mgd of alternative water supplies would be needed to supply projected public supply demands in CFCA through Task 1C: SFWMD, SJRWMD and SWFWMD will identify this information for utilities in their respective districts based on best available data. For those utilities with service areas that extend into two or more water management districts and for other water uses that are transported across district boundaries, the applicable districts will jointly develop this information. Staff at each district was assigned the responsibility of compiling the necessary information for that district and forwarding it to Don Brandes, Ph.D., at SJRWMD. Dr. Brandes was assigned the responsibility of compiling the data into tables that became the basis of the Group s effort to identify the quantities of alternative water needed by each public supply utility and the identified water supply projects that could be implemented to meet these needs. Appendix B presents public water use projections for all public water supply entities in the CFCA between the years The table in Appendix B also identifies the unmet public water needs between 2013 and These unmet needs are the target amounts to be met by alternative water supply projects. CFCA Final Report January

8 Objective 2: Develop list of already identified AWS development project options that could reasonably provide water to public supply utilities with identified unmet needs. Task 2A: SFWMD, SJRWMD and SWFWMD will all contribute to this list. Task 2B: Project list will include project name, planning level description of the source, location, components, quantity, treatment requirements, estimated time of new water availability and cost information. The staffs of the districts contributed necessary information concerning multijurisdictional projects identified in their respective regional water supply plans and projects that had been identified through already-underway, county-level water supply planning efforts. This information was compiled for use in identifying likely implementation strategies for potential water supply projects (Appendix C). Objective 3: Evaluate combinations of projects from the list developed under Objective 2 and any other AWS development project options that may be feasible to meet the projected needs. The staffs of the districts agreed that a project selection process should be carried out in coordination with public supply utility representatives. This process (Appendix D) was based largely on a project selection process structure being used by SJRWMD in association with its county-level and intercounty water supply planning process. This project selection process was implemented and resulted in a facilities planning strategy that is currently being implemented. Objective 4: Develop draft implementation strategies using traditional and AWS development projects identified in Objectives 2 and 3, including funding strategies that associate public supply utilities with AWS development projects. Task 4A: Such strategies will be based upon the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of each project. SFWMD Over the next twenty years, water supply development projects are anticipated to shift from reliance on local traditional sources (Floridan aquifer) to nontraditional or alternative sources. The Kissimmee Basin Water Supply Plan Update for includes a list of identified alternative water supply projects prepared through solicitation of local governments and other water users and from options identified by the District. These projects are included in Appendix C. These AWS projects include reclaimed water use expansion, brackish ground water development, and surface water development from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes/River system. CFCA Final Report January

9 Local government/utilities are identified for taking the lead in development for continued reclaimed water usage. The District supports these efforts through SB 444 funding match grants. Brackish ground water investigations are also to be led by a local government/utility with District financial assistance. The development of surface water from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes /River system is being led by SFWMD. In 2007 SFWMD initiated and fully funded a feasibility study to determine regional availability of surface water from the Kissimmee system. Continued work will begin in 2008 on a feasibility/design phase for the project and is anticipated to be a jointly facilitated project between SFWMD and local utilities interested in participating. This list of alternative water supply projects also recognizes the regional nature of water resources and acknowledges water supply alternatives being developed within the SWFWMD and SJRWMD might deliver water within a utility service area that crosses district boundaries. The SFWMD AWS implementation strategy encourages water providers within SFWMD to participate in the AWS selection process of SJRWMD. At the same time SFWMD recognizes that alternative water supply projects within its jurisdiction are also identified as sources for demands located outside of its boundaries and therefore includes these potential demands within investigations that it is conducting. SFWMD anticipates that water supply utilities that do not participate in one of the projects and in sufficient quantity to cover their identified demand deficit will have to arrange to purchase that water from the project partners. This is because the cost of project development, in most cases will be too expensive to allow for implementation by a single utility. SJRWMD The project selection process described in Appendix D is the basis of SJRWMD s proposed project implementation strategy. This strategy focuses on performance of a preliminary design investigation for the following potential projects. St. Johns River/Taylor Creek Reservoir Project St. Johns River at Yankee Lake Project St. Johns River near SR 46 Project St. Johns River near DeLand Project Lower Ocklawaha River in Marion County Project The result, which will be based on consideration of technical, economic and environmental feasibility of the projects, will be clear definition of which of these projects is best suited for each participating public supply utility and a 35% complete project design. SJRWMD anticipates that this preliminary design will be the basis of development of an interlocal agreement or other appropriate instrument between project partners, and should be suitable as a basis of permitting and funding actions. SJRWMD proposes to commit Water Protection and Sustainability Program funds to support the construction of projects based on these interlocal agreements or other appropriate instruments. CFCA Final Report January

10 SJRWMD anticipates that water supply utilities that choose not to participate in the preliminary design process, if they need water from the identified alternative water supply projects, will have to arrange to purchase that water from the project partners. This is because the cost of project development, in most cases will be too expensive to allow for implementation by a single utility. SWFWMD Over the next twenty years, water supply development in the SWFWMD portion of the CFCA will rely on continued enhancement of conservation efforts, land use transitions, and implementation of reclaimed water and other alternative water source projects. SWFWMD s Regional Water Supply Plan Update for 2006 (RWSP) includes a list of identified alternative water supply projects (Appendix C) prepared through solicitation of local governments and other water users and from options identified by the SWFWMD. Local government/utilities are identified as taking the lead in development of reclaimed water and conservation projects. Brackish ground water investigations by SWFWMD and local governments are continuing in order to determine if this source can be developed without impacting the Upper Floridan aquifer. SFWMD has taken the lead in identifying the quantities of water that are potentially available from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes /River system. Since the Kissimmee River forms the eastern boundary of Polk County, and a significant portion of the watershed lies within the county, the river is considered a local source and has been identified as a strategic alternative source for the county. The SWFWMD is also continuing to assess other water sources within its boundaries and is coordinating with the SFWMD in assessing the availability of other sources that could be developed and shared among utilities in adjacent areas of both Districts. Local governments wishing to develop an alternative source of water can consult the SWFWMD s RWSP or propose additional alternatives. The SWFWMD offers funding assistance to local governments through its Cooperative Funding Initiative. The program typically funds up to 50 percent of project capital costs from planning through construction. Projects qualifying for funding through the Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund are eligible for up to 50 percent funding for planning, design and engineering, and up to 60 percent for construction. Objective 5: Solicit local government and other stakeholder input, participation and buyin. Task 5A: Meet with individual utilities, group of utilities and other stakeholders as necessary to assess the implementation potential of the draft strategies or other project options identified by utilities or other stakeholders that are deemed feasible. CFCA Final Report January

11 The districts held public meetings on the following dates with public supply utilities in CFCA. February 20, 2007 April 27, 2007 June 22, 2007 These meetings were used as an opportunity to present pertinent water use and water supply project information, to receive input, and to assess the implementation potential of the proposed project selection process. Summaries of these meetings are included in Appendix E of this document. Task 5B: Document those water supply project options that have been mutually agreed upon by the districts and involved local governments and other stakeholders. Such documentation will include, for each participant, the water supply needs unmet by traditional sources to be met by the project. The documentation will also identify the lead district for further investigation and development of each supply option, which is anticipated to be the district within which the supply source is located. Appendix C provides a detailed listing of AWS projects identified by the three water management districts. At the time of preparation of this document, this effort was well underway. SFWMD was in the process of assessing the feasibility of the Upper Kissimmee Project, with close coordination with the SWFWMD and SJRWMD. The analysis will evaluate the technical, engineering, regulatory and financial feasibility an array of water supply alternatives in the Upper Kissimmee River basin. Up to six system configurations will be developed with planning level costs for component facilities such as intake, storage treatment and transmission facilities. This effort is scheduled to be complete by March of 2008 and should result in a recommended course of action based on Stakeholder s demonstrated interest in pursuing one or more of the feasible water supply alternatives. Also at the time of preparation of this document, SJRWMD had held a meeting of all interested potential partners in the identified potential water supply development projects ( Big Meeting, July 18, 2007). Participants in the meeting were asked to identify the AWS project sources that they wanted to investigate further. The table below shows the number of entities that chose each AWS project source. The table also indicates the estimated potable water deficit represented by the entities for each source. Source Entities Deficit (MGD) Lake Rousseau Lower Ocklawaha SJR near DeLand SJR near SR SJR near Yankee Lake Withlacoochee River Other 2 2 CFCA Final Report January

12 Participants decided that they would like to have source-specific meetings to investigate each source further. These meetings have begun for the Lower Ocklawaha River, SJR near Deland, SJR near SR-46 and SJR near Yankee Lake projects. The Withlacoochee River Water Supply Authority (WRWSA) in coordination with SWFWMD is investigating the Withlacoochee River source including Lake Rousseau. However, at the time of preparation of this document, WRWSA had no plans to serve public water supply utilities in CFCA. In subsequent analysis, the Withlacoochee River was removed as a potential source of water to meet future demands in the CFCA. Meetings for further investigation of the sources have begun and are considered the first of three phases in the investigation and potential construction of any AWS projects. The three-phased approach with timelines is described below. Phase I is the preliminary investigation that is currently underway for the Lower Ocklawaha, SJR near SR-46 and SJR near DeLand projects. These investigations will take approximately 3-5 months and are designed to produce enough project and cost data so that interested entities can decide if they want to participate and invest in the next phase, which is a preliminary design report. Phase I will result in a preliminary intake location, treatment plant type/scale and transmission line locations for each project. Cost estimates will also be developed. Entities participating in Phase I will not have to pay any fees for this work. Existing SJRWMD staff and consultants will conduct and facilitate this work. Phase II is the preparation of a preliminary design report (PDR). Entities are expected to develop and sign an interlocal agreement that commits them to providing time and money to participate in the PDR process. The interlocal agreement will stipulate the process for retaining an engineering consulting team to conduct this work. It is expected that the SJRWMD may fund up to 30% of the costs of this work. The PDR will take the project to a 35% design level and ready for permitting. The PDR will identify the best places and sizes for facilities and mains, and the best treatment options. It will also prioritize project delivery and financing options. Governance issues regarding who will operate the facility, how, when and where water will be delivered and payment decisions will be discussed and outlined during this phase. Phase II is expected to take months. Phase III is the construct, own, operate and maintain phase and will only take place if enough entities decide to pursue a project beyond the PDR phase. State and SJRWMD matching funds may be available for up to 40% of the construction costs of the project. The SWFWMD, in partnership with Polk County, is developing a scope of work for further identification, quantification and project development for supplemental water supplies to meet needs in Polk County, with a focus on surface water development in the upper Peace River watershed. CFCA Final Report January

13 Objective 6: Update each of the districts respective regional water supply plans to include the recommended AWS development projects. Such projects will then be eligible for potential funding from appropriate districts, including potential funding from the State Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund. The districts will seek to have these utility selected strategies become part of the local government comprehensive plan subject to appropriate FDEP and DCA review. To be accomplished Objective 7: Develop a Memorandum of Understanding among the three districts to reflect continued central Florida coordination. Incorporate appropriate elements of the Guiding Principles and Mutual Understandings when completed. Subsequent to this assignment, SFWMD, SJRWMD, and SWFWMD decided that the matter would not be addressed by the CFCA Planning Work Group, but would be addressed by a broader group of staff. CFCA Final Report January

14 Figure 1. Public water supply service areas and potential alternative water supply Development projects in Central Florida Coordination Area CFCA Final Report January

15 Appendix A Recommended Action Plan for the Central Florida Coordination Area A Cooperative Effort of the South Florida, Southwest Florida and St. Johns River Water Management Districts September 18, 2006 Executive Summary...2 Conclusions...2 Goals and Objectives...2 Background...4 Figure 1 Area Map...6 Guiding Principles and Mutual Understandings...7 Individual Work Group Action Plans...10 Regulatory Work Group...10 Planning Work Group...14 Computer Modeling and Tools Work Group...16 CFCA Final Report January

16 Executive Summary Conclusions The districts have each concluded through detailed water supply planning and individual permit actions that the growth in public water supply (PWS) over the next 20 years in central Florida from traditional groundwater sources is not sustainable. Recent water supply plan updates, permitting experience, and the increasing frequency that measures implemented by permit condition are required to avoid or mitigate unacceptable levels of harm, all confirm that if traditional groundwater sources continue to be developed to meet growing PWS demands in the area, harm to the water resources (rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands and aquifer quality) will occur. In general, the districts have jointly concluded that the availability of sustainable quantities of groundwater in central Florida is insufficient on a regional basis to meet future demands and there is an immediate need to develop and implement alternatives water supply (AWS) projects in addition to continued aggressive conservation and reuse of reclaimed water. The time necessary to implement AWS projects will necessitate allocation of groundwater consistent with 2013 projected demands. Beyond the 2013 level of demand, AWS sources must be developed to meet future demands. In some instances, specific conditions may require allocations from traditional groundwater be less than 2013 demand or require specific actions be taken to avoid or mitigate harm that would occur from the 2013 demand at a specific location. In other areas, specific conditions may allow slightly increased allocation. But, the conclusion is clear, within the next 5 to 6 years PWS utilities in central Florida must be prepared to move to alternative water supplies as a critical component of meeting future demands. The districts are committed to refining the tools necessary to improve the best estimate of the limits on sustainable groundwater and reevaluate these conclusions as these tools and data become available. The districts are also committed to a continuing assessment of all potential AWS sources, including but not limited to, the St. Johns River and Kissimmee River systems in order to help meet future demands. As a general proposition, permits issued in the interim will be conditioned to reflect the 2013 limit on traditional groundwater resources and the uncertainty in projecting potential harm to the water resources. Goals and Objectives The districts have developed this Action Plan to assure a coordinated and consistent approach in the Central Florida Coordination Area (CFCA), including the City of Cocoa s public supply service area in Brevard County; all of Polk, Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties; and southern Lake County. Staff work groups developed consensus action plans in three key functional areas: regulatory, planning, and computer modeling and tools. Each has more detailed information, including specific tasks and schedules, later in this document. The work group goals and objectives are as follows. CFCA Final Report January

17 Regulatory Goal: To avoid competition and to prevent harm to the water resources in the CFCA, permitting of PWS should result in a consistent and equitable outcome and create incentives for the expedited development of required AWSs. Objective 1: Until the long-term approach is implemented (Objective 2), implement an interim approach to permit allocations and conditions for PWS in the CFCA to achieve the work plan goal over the short term. Objective 2: Develop and implement a long-term approach to PWS system permit allocations and conditions to achieve the work plan goal over the long term. o Planning Goal: To identify AWS development projects and implementation strategies that will assure the availability of sustainable water supplies to meet projected public supply needs in a timely manner through 2025 in the CFCA. Objective 1: Identify the need for AWS projects. Objective 2: Develop a list of already identified AWS development project options that could reasonably provide water to public supply utilities with identified unmet needs. Objective 3: Evaluate combinations of projects from the list developed under Objective 2 and any other AWS development project options that may be feasible to meet the projected needs. Objective 4: Develop draft implementation strategies using traditional and AWS development projects identified in Objectives 2 and 3, including funding strategies that associate public supply utilities with AWS development projects. Objective 5: Solicit local government and other stakeholder input, participation and buy-in. Objective 6: Update each of the districts respective regional water supply plans to include the recommended AWS development projects. Such projects will then be eligible for potential funding from appropriate districts, including potential funding from the State Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund. The districts will seek to have these utility-selected strategies become part of the local government comprehensive plan subject to appropriate Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Department of Community Affairs (DCA) review. CFCA Final Report January

18 Objective 7: Develop a Memorandum of Understanding among the three districts to reflect continued central Florida coordination. Incorporate appropriate elements of the Guiding Principles and Mutual Understandings when completed. o Computer Modeling and Tools Goal: To ensure that the best available hydrologic modeling, statistical, and analytical tools are available for use to quantify sustainable groundwater and surface water availability in the CFCA in support of regulatory actions, regional water supply planning, and implementation of alternative water source projects; and to assist in developing a data-sharing strategy to ensure these tools will be updated in a consistent manner. Objective 1: Identify and determine the primary tools to be used to support current permitting and water supply planning programs in central Florida. Objective 2: Use existing primary tools to assist the permitting group in completing a short-term preliminary assessment of hydrologic conditions in the CFCA area to address the effects of currently allocated and future water uses in the CFCA. Objective 3: Complete development of the tools needed to address water resource issues in the CFCA that cross regional-scale model boundaries for future decision-making purposes. Objective 4: Organize and coordinate a data-sharing system that will ensure future consistency among the tools as they become updated. Objective 5: Organize and initiate a communication process with the permitting and planning work groups to ensure consistency in model application. Background In the spring of 2006, the Executive Directors of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) directed staff to develop better mechanisms for formal coordination and communication in the area of central Florida where the boundaries of the districts come together. This effort was initiated because of the increasing frequency and complexity of issues in each district related to the sustainability of traditional groundwater resources to meet current and future demands and the simple fact that actions in one district can impact water resources and water users throughout the area. Throughout the summer, the Executive Directors began the development of a set of guiding principles and mutual understandings to establish the policy framework to guide the future efforts of the districts. The Guiding Principles and Mutual Understandings are included in the following section. These policy framework efforts culminated in midsummer with a discussion with senior staff involved in CFCA Final Report January

19 regulation, water supply planning, development of computer modeling and other tools. The staffs were challenged to prepare an action plan to implement the policy framework established by the Executive Directors over a 24-month period and beyond. The effort to create this Action Plan was organized into three primary work groups, representing key functional areas: regulation, planning, and computer modeling and tools. A fourth team to focus on a strategy for outreach to potential stakeholders will be developed after this action plan is approved. The CFCA is identified in Figure 1. The area is based on the utility service areas in the central Florida areas where the boundaries of the districts come together. CFCA Final Report January

20 Figure 1. Central Florida Coordination Area (CFCA) CFCA Final Report January

21 Guiding Principles and Mutual Understandings SJRWMD, SFWMD and SWFWMD (the parties) agree to the following guiding principles and expressions of mutual understanding concerning short- and long-term development of PWS in the central Florida region, including southern Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole and Polk Counties and the City of Cocoa service area. The parties believe establishing these guiding principles and expressions of mutual understanding will enable them to resolve water resource issues, thereby allowing for timely and equitable transition to AWS sources. These guiding principles and expressions of mutual understanding include: 1. A significant increase in PWS demand in central Florida is anticipated. 2. The water management districts in their respective regional water supply plans have concluded there will be insufficient groundwater supplies to satisfy this entire demand. 3. The parties recognize that groundwater models inherently contain uncertainties, making it difficult to precisely quantify how much groundwater is available in the region for use without causing harm. 4. As another complication, utility plans and growth rates frequently change, making it difficult to assess potential impacts. The parties recognize the importance of developing a comprehensive plan for the development of AWS and traditional sources in central Florida. 5. The parties would like to optimize use of sustainable quantities of traditional groundwater sources, without causing harmful saltwater intrusion or land subsidence, interference with existing legal uses of water, or harmful impacts to such water resources as wetlands, spring flows, and lakes, or violation of minimum flows and levels. The parties believe the development of traditional sources will not be sufficient to meet future demands and that it will take time to implement AWS. Thus it is appropriate to immediately develop AWS for use in combination with traditional sources. 6. The parties recognize the need to expeditiously develop AWS projects, including projects that develop new sources, in addition to the use of reclaimed water. 7. The parties recognize that both short-term and long-term actions will be necessary to achieve sustainable water supplies to meet growing demands. 8. The parties would like to achieve equitable allocations of the remaining available groundwater among users in central Florida to meet new water demands and to implement AWS projects in a timely manner. 9. The commitment by an applicant to develop an AWS project is likely to result in a longer permit duration for groundwater withdrawals, recognizing that should CFCA Final Report January

22 unanticipated impacts occur, groundwater withdrawals can be reduced and replaced with additional use from the AWS project. 10. The parties believe it is necessary to expeditiously develop AWS projects; however, this does not, necessarily, foreclose the ability to request additional groundwater allocations as the AWS projects are brought to fruition. 11. Until AWS projects are implemented, the parties recognize there may be a need to address several critical interests. These interests include the desire to: (1) allocate amounts of water that will not cause harm, (2) make and have equitable and sufficient allocations of water to satisfy short-term demands, and (3) require AWS development projects to help meet the future longterm needs of the entire central Florida region. 12. Many water supply utilities have consumptive use permit applications pending before one or more of the party water management districts. 13. The parties recognize that one of the steps to successfully achieving timely and cost-effective solutions for PWS is for the parties not to challenge administrative action on pending consumptive use permit applications sought by other entities. 14. The parties agree to the following actions for the timely development of a long-term, regional solution for central Florida s water supply needs. The parties goal for this effort is to develop specific plans for development of AWS projects to meet the needs of the central Florida region through The parties envision this process will be accomplished in 24 months; however, the parties also recognize that it may be necessary to extend the time frame to accomplish this goal. a. Use of Best Available Information and Groundwater Modeling and Analytical Tools The parties agree to rely upon use of the best available information and groundwater modeling, statistical and analytical tools to quantify groundwater availability to support regulatory actions, regional water supply planning, and implementation of AWS projects. As additional information and enhanced modeling, statistical and analytical tools become available, these will be used to improve the precision of estimating impacts. b. AWS Projects i. The parties will work together to select the AWS projects and to establish a proposed schedule for AWS project development that the water utilities will implement to meet their additional water supply needs over the next 20 years. The selection and schedule should be accomplished as soon as possible and in no later than 18 months. ii. The parties, through their planning and funding efforts, intend to assist the water utilities in central Florida in this effort. Many such projects have already CFCA Final Report January

23 been identified in existing regional water supply plans. This effort will be directly supported with funding from the Water Protection and Sustainability Program. iii. The parties, in collaboration with the water utilities in central Florida, will focus initial efforts on the following AWS development projects: St. Johns River/Taylor Creek Reservoir Project and the Upper Kissimmee Watershed. The SFWMD, with the assistance of SJRWMD, SWFWMD and water utilities, will identify quantities of water available for storage and recharge options associated with PWS use of water from the Upper Kissimmee Watershed and will implement the same expeditiously. c. Authorizations for groundwater allocations for water utilities implementing AWS projects i. The parties agree that water utilities in central Florida which develop specific AWS projects to meet their new demands beyond the near term (approximately next 5 years) should have the opportunity to seek and obtain authorizations to withdraw groundwater that include both specific requirements to develop the AWS project(s) and new groundwater allocations to fulfill their water supply needs until these projects are online. The districts intend to issue long duration permits consistent with District rules; however, authorizations to withdraw new groundwater may need to shift to AWS. ii. The districts will work toward issuance of these authorizations by utilizing all available regulatory tools including variances and/or agreements. iii. These authorizations will be conditioned to include water conservation and water use efficiency; monitoring and reporting of water use, water conservation activities, and water resource data necessary to address potential impacts associated with such use; schedules, milestones, and progress reports for the development of AWS; compliance reporting; and avoidance/mitigation of harmful impacts, if any occur as a result of groundwater withdrawals. d. Open and Transparent Process: The parties will collaborate with one another in an open and transparent process. e. These guiding principles and mutual understandings do not constitute agency action on any specific permit application. Nothing in this agreement binds SFWMD, SWFWMD and SJRWMD to make any specific future permit decision. CFCA Final Report January

24 Individual Work Group Action Plans Regulatory Work Group Goal: In order to avoid competition and to prevent harm to the water resources in the CFCA, permitting of PWS should result in a consistent and equitable outcome and create incentives for the expedited development of required AWSs. Objective 1: Until the long-term approach is implemented (Objective 2), implement an interim approach to permit allocations and conditions for PWS in the CFCA to achieve the work plan goal over the short term. Task 1A: Process pending and new applications for (PWS) utilities in the CFCA consistent with the structure provided in Task IA, IB, and IC below. (Initiate immediately for pending applications with the goal of agency action by the end of 2007.Ongoing for new applications.) 1. PWS utilities that propose to develop specific AWS project(s) to meet their demands beyond 2013 will have the opportunity to seek authorization to withdraw groundwater above current demands up to their 2013 demand, provided they avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. Permit allocations from traditional groundwater sources will be limited to the amounts necessary to meet 2013 demands with allocations for demands greater than 2013 demands to be met by AWS. 2. If permits include a plan to implement AWS by 2013 to meet future demands, the duration can be up to 20 years with periodic reviews (e.g., 5-year compliance reviews). If permits do not include a plan to implement AWS to meet future demands, the permit duration will be limited to the period for which reasonable assurances can be provided, but not to exceed Permits issued from now through 2013 will include an allocation no more than that corresponding to 2013 use. For example, a permit issued in 2010 may be for 20 years, but will be capped at the 2013 allocation with subsequent water demands to be met by AWS projects. Some lakes and wetlands are expected to require specific avoidance and/or mitigation measures by the permit applicants who contribute to observed or projected adverse impacts at such specific locations. Permits will be contingent on implementing sufficient avoidance and/or mitigation to prevent adverse impacts. 4. To address uncertainty, all allocations are subject to reduction if adverse impacts are observed or projected to occur based on updated modeling tools and additional data collection. CFCA Final Report January

25 5. For all permittees except those described in Task IB, permits will include specific conditions with scheduled milestones on the development of AWS projects by In the event that the permittee establishes that it has exercised due diligence to meet the permit milestone requirements for AWS project development, but water from the project is not yet available in 2013, requests for interim allocations for additional groundwater will be considered when needed. Such interim allocations will be eliminated, or otherwise addressed based on the outcome of Objective 2 tasks, when the water from the AWS project is available. 7. All permits issued with durations beyond 2013 shall be subject to periodic reviews for the purpose of assessing continued compliance with the conditions of issuance. Task 1B: For PWSs that are projected to have only an insignificant increase in demand for additional groundwater beyond their 2013 demand, or do not have feasible AWS options to meet demands beyond their 2013 demand, develop a consistent approach to determine the requirements that will be imposed. (Initiate immediately and complete as soon as possible, based on the timetable in CFCA Planning Work plan to identify AWS projects for each PWS.) Task 1C: Agree on standardized conditions for PWS permits, to address the following: (Complete by January 2007.) 1. Requirement to mitigate for existing harm due to current withdrawals 2. Requirement to implement measures to avoid or mitigate anticipated harm due to proposed withdrawals 3. Requirement to mitigate for unanticipated harm should it occur 4. Requirement for monitoring, analysis and reporting for district review 5. Requirement for periodic reporting (e.g., 5-year compliance reporting) 6. Requirement for AWS development and use, or use of AWS projects available from others, by: a. PWS with a specific AWS project selected b. PWS without a specific AWS project selected 7. Potential modification of permit allocations and conditions 8. Permittee noncompliance with allocations or permit conditions CFCA Final Report January

26 Task 1D: South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) staff will recommend the initiation of rulemaking to address PWS permit durations in the CFCA, as described in Task 1A. (Initiate rulemaking by the end of 2006.) Task 1E. Develop a new Internet portal that allows easy identification of the status of PWS utility permits within the CFCA; facilitates access to data and information, and improves communication between staff. (Complete enhancements by January 2007 and maintain them thereafter.) Specific actions: A Web portal has already been set up and is now functioning to assist in the current effort by providing a place to access documents. This portal will be significantly expanded to include: 1. A consistent and accurate set of permit data regarding PWS existing permits and pending applications. Data set will include information such as permit number, county, permittee/applicant, date issued or pending, permit expiration, requested increase in allocation, maximum permitted allocation, maximum allocation requested, year corresponding to maximum allocation, estimated 2013 demand, and information on permit conditions. 2. Identification of pending PWS applications on geographic information system (GIS) interface, with link to each district permitting database for complete permit application file. This would replace current practice of notification of pending application. 3. Identification of existing PWS permits via GIS interface, with key data on permit duration, allocations, monitoring and AWS requirements, and link to each district s permitting database for complete permit file. 4. Links to current groundwater and surface water modeling tools 5. Links to hydrologic data collected by permit applicants and each district Note: Live link to permit data for SJRWMD is available today and similar links for SFWMD and SWFWMD are scheduled by the end of the year. If the additional live links are not available at the time of implementation, tabular summary information with essential data will be generated from existing nightly data downloads used in the existing interdistrict e-permitting portal ( Objective 2: Develop and implement a long-term approach to PWS system permit allocations and conditions to achieve the work plan goal over the long term. CFCA Final Report January

27 Task 2A: Assist the CFCA Tools Work Group in completion of ongoing model development (including any additional model improvements needed to complete the detailed assessment) and other data collection needed to make detailed investigations of impacts due to existing and proposed withdrawals in the CFCA. (Ongoing. Complete by the end of 2008, subject to Tools Work Plan.) Task 2B: Develop consistent permitting criteria related to impact evaluation in CFCA (Ongoing. Complete by the end of 2008.) 1. Identify key criteria that will set constraints on groundwater development in CFCA. Identify all rule criteria of importance in establishing the long-term sustainable groundwater availability by location throughout the CFCA, such as minimum flows and levels (MFLs), wetland impact criteria, saline water intrusion, etc. 2. Jointly develop consistent implementation approach: District regulatory staff will review and propose consistent review criteria and assessment methods for each key criteria. 3. Conduct rulemaking to revise regulatory criteria as needed to implement the consistency initiative in Task IIB.2, above. These consistent criteria will be used in interpreting results of all assessment tools for the CFCA. Task 2C: Conduct detailed assessment to estimate sustainable withdrawals by general location throughout the CFCA, based on updated modeling tools and regulatory criteria (Start when updated tools are available. Complete by early 2009.) Task 2D: Develop and implement a long-term water supply strategy for AWS and for allocation of available groundwater. (Begin in late Complete by the end of 2009, including outreach.) 1. Identify annual increase of groundwater demands for each utility in region (include utility interconnect numbers). 2. Use demand data from above to develop model entry to provide to modeling group. SFWMD will take the lead in the transient model runs to share with SJRWMD and SWFWMD for joint interpretation. 3. Incorporate AWS alternatives to determine water supply work strategy to build into individual permits. 4. Determine a detailed method for equitable allocation of remaining groundwater or a plan for cutting back if harm is determined to occur from permitted withdrawals. 5. Draft equitable allocation approach and conduct workshops for stakeholder input. 6. Conduct rulemaking as needed to implement long-term water supply strategy for CFCA. CFCA Final Report January

28 Planning Work Group Goal: To identify AWS development projects and implementation strategies that will assure the availability of sustainable water supplies to meet projected public supply needs in a timely manner through 2025 in the CFCA. Objective 1: Identify the need for AWS projects. Task 1A: Identify demand projections for all public water utilities and other categories of water use within the study area (including demand, timing and location). (Complete by September 30, 2006.) Task 1B: Identify amount of future demands to be met by alternative water supplies (e.g., unmet by traditional groundwater) for each utility or other new water use. (Complete by September 30, 2006.) Task 1C: SFWMD, SJRWMD and SWFWMD will identify this information for utilities in their respective districts based on best available data. For those utilities with service areas that extend into two or more water management districts and for other water uses that cross district boundaries, the applicable districts will jointly develop this information. (Complete by September 30, 2006.) Objective 2: Develop list of already identified AWS development project options that could reasonably provide water to public supply utilities with identified unmet needs. Task 2A: SFWMD, SJRWMD and SWFWMD will all contribute to this list. (Complete by October 31, 2006.) Task 2B: Project list will include project name, planning level description of source, location, components, quantity, treatment requirements, estimated time of new water availability and cost information. (Complete by October 31, 2006.) Objective 3: Evaluate combinations of projects from the list developed under Objective 2 and any other AWS development project options that may be feasible to meet the projected needs. (Complete by October 31, 2006.) Objective 4: Develop draft implementation strategies using traditional and AWS development projects identified in Objectives 2 and 3, including funding strategies that associate public supply utilities with AWS development projects. Task 4A: Such strategies will be based upon the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of each project. (Complete by December 31, 2006.) Task 4B: To the extent reasonable, water supply development projects will be recommended as sources to supply utilities located in the water management CFCA Final Report January

29 district within which the supply is located; however, projects that entail interdistrict transport will be considered in light of any applicable statutory provisions. (Complete by December 31, 2006.) Objective 5: Solicit local government and other stakeholder input, participation and buy-in. Task 5A: Meet with individual utilities, groups of utilities and other stakeholders as necessary to assess the implementation potential of the draft strategies or other project options identified by utilities or other stakeholders that are deemed feasible. (Initiate no later than January 1, 2007, and complete by December 31, 2007.) Task 5B: Document those water supply project options that have been mutually agreed upon by the districts and involved local governments and other stakeholders. Such documentation will include, for each participant, the water supply needs unmet by traditional sources to be met by the project. The documentation will also identify the lead district for further investigation and development of each supply option, which is anticipated to be the district within which the supply source is located. (Initiate no later than January 1, 2007, and complete by December 31, 2007.) Objective 6: Update each of the district s respective regional water supply plans to include the recommended AWS development projects. Such projects will then be eligible for potential funding from appropriate districts, including potential funding from the State Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund. The districts will seek to have these utility selected strategies become part of the local government comprehensive plan subject to appropriate FDEP and DCA review. (Complete as necessary.) Objective 7: Develop a Memorandum of Understanding among the three districts to reflect continued central Florida coordination. Incorporate appropriate elements of the Guiding Principles and Mutual Understandings when completed. (To be determined.) CFCA Final Report January

30 Computer Modeling and Tools Work Group Goal: To ensure that the best available hydrologic modeling, statistical, and analytical tools are available for use to quantify sustainable groundwater and surface water availability in the CFCA region in support of regulatory actions, regional water supply planning, and implementation of alternative water source projects; and to assist in developing a data-sharing strategy to ensure these tools will be updated in a consistent manner. Objective 1: Identify and determine the primary tools to be used to support current permitting and water-supply planning programs in central Florida. Task 1A: Review the available regional and subregional scale groundwater and surface water modeling tools that exist within the CFCA area. (Complete by September 2006.) Task 1B: Inventory the primary tools currently available for application to the permitting and planning programs. (Complete by September 2006.) Task 1C: Inventory the primary tools that will be used in the next 24 months for application to the permitting and planning programs. (Complete by September 2006.) Task 1D: Identify significant differences between primary tools. (Complete by November 2006.) Task 1E: Recommend a procedure to apply primary tools for application to the permitting and planning programs. (Complete by November 2006.) Task 1F: Finalize the identified primary tools currently in development, including the peer review process. (Complete by December 2007.) Objective 2: Use existing primary tools to assist the permitting group in completing a short-term preliminary assessment of hydrologic conditions in the CFCA area to address the effects of currently allocated and future water uses in the CFCA. Task 2A: Join with the permitting and planning groups to develop water use data sets of currently allocated, 2013, and future water uses. (Complete by November 2006.) Task 2B: Use the currently available East-Central Florida Transient (ECFT) model to simulate aquifer level changes as a result of this water use. (Complete by December 2006.) Task 2C: Use available tools to provide an analysis of water resource trends in the CFCA. (Complete by January 2007.) CFCA Final Report January

31 Task 2D: Provide these results to permitting group of each district for joint interpretation. (Complete by January 2007.) Objective 3: Complete development of the tools needed to address water resource issues in the CFCA that cross regional-scale model boundaries for future decision-making purposes. Task 3A: Compare in detail the regional-scale groundwater modeling tools that overlap within central Florida. (Complete by November 2006.) Task 3B: Develop a mutually acceptable process for applying multiple models to address a variety of water resource issues that extend beyond individual district boundaries. (Complete by July 2007.) Task 3C: Compare how existing tools are used by each district for permitting and planning applications. (Complete by December 2007.) Task 3D: Develop a consensus, in conjunction with the permitting and planning groups, regarding a consistent application approach for each tool. (Complete by November 2008.) Task 3E: Use all available tools, in addition to the ECFT model, to provide an assessment of hydrologic conditions and identify areas of critical concern within the CFCA. (Complete by November 2008.) Objective 4: Organize and coordinate a data-sharing system that will ensure future consistency among the tools as they become updated. Task 4A: Inventory the data needs common to the modeling tools. (Complete by February 2007.) Task 4B: Develop and implement a data collection, evaluation and sharing process among SFWMD, SJRWMD, and SWFWMD. (Complete by February 2007.) Example data types/issues to be included: 1. Water use 2. GIS layers (topography, land use, etc.) 3. Hydrogeologic data 4. Monitoring networks Task 4C: Develop a planning document to develop a common and/or seamless approach to sharing critical regulatory and planning data between districts. This document would be the basis to obtain program funding in the following fiscal year (FY) 2008 by each district to implement the plan. (Complete by March 2007.) CFCA Final Report January

32 Objective 5: Organize and initiate a communication process with the permitting and planning work groups to ensure consistency in model application. Task 5A: Identify critical linkages between the work plans developed by the modeling tools, planning, and permitting work groups. (Complete by July 2007.) Task 5B: Develop and implement a strategy to coordinate modeling efforts among the districts modeling staffs and to receive feedback from the planning and permitting staffs regarding specific modeling questions. (Complete by December 2007.) CFCA Final Report January

33 Appendix B Public Water Use Projections Public Supply Water Use Projections (mgd)* in Central Florida Coordination Area Utility/Local Government ** 2010** 2013** ** 2020** 2025 Cocoa, City of (SJR) Lake County (SJR) Clerbrook Golf and RV Resort Clermont, City of Groveland, City of Lake Groves UIF Lake Utility Services Inc. UIF Mascotte, Town of Minneola, City of Monteverde, Town of Southlake Utilities Total Orange County (SJR & SF) Apopka, City of Aqua Utilities Florida Chateau Land Dev Co, Starlight Ranch Clarcona Resorts Condominium Eatonville, Town of Maitland, City of O&S Utility Oakland, Town of Ocoee, City of Orange County Utilities Orlando Utilities Commission Reedy Creek Improvement District Rock Springs MHP Shadow Hills MHP Taft Water Association UIF- Wedgefield Winter Garden, City of Winter Park, City of Total Osceola County (SF) Poinciana Utilities St. Cloud Utility CFCA Final Report January

34 Utility/Local Government ** 2010** 2013** ** 2020** 2025 Tohopekaliga Water Authority Tropical Palms Resort Total Polk County (SF & SWF) Aqua Utility Florida Inc Auburndale, City of Bartow, City of Century Realty - Swiss Village Century Realty Fund City of Mulberry, City of Crooked Lake Park Water Cypress Lakes Utilities Cypress Lakes Venture Davenport, City of Dundee, Town of Eagle Lake, City of Fort Meade, City of Four Lakes Golf Club Frostproof, City of Grenelefe Haines City, City of Lake Alfred, City of Lake Hamilton, Town of Lake Region Mobile Homes Lake Wales, City of Lakeland, City of Mountain Lake Corp2, Orchid Spring Development Plantation Landings Poinciana Utilities Polk City, City of Polk County (Oak Hill Estates) Polk County / CRSA Polk County / ERSA Polk County / NERUSA Polk County / NWRSA Polk County / SERSA Polk County / SWRSA Sweetwater Coop CFCA Final Report January

35 Utility/Local Government ** 2010** 2013** ** 2020** 2025 Village of Highland Park Westgate River Ranch Winter Haven, City of Total Seminole County (SJR) Altamonte Springs, City of Aqua Utilities Florida-Chuluota Casselberry, City of Lake Mary, City of Longwood, City of Oviedo, City of Palm Valley MHP Sanford, City of Seminole Co. Utilities-Apple Valley Seminole Co.-Druid Hills/Bretton Woods Seminole Co.-Meredith Manor Seminole County Utilities UIF-Oakland Shores UIF-Ravenna Park UIF-Sanlando Utilities Corp UIF-Weathersfield Winter Springs, City of Total Grand Totals *Data is for permitted public supply only. SWFWMD values will not match Draft 2006 Regional Water Supply Plan. **SJRWMD projections for 2005, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2020 are linear interpolations between 2000 and SFWMD projections for intermediate years are specified growth with a cap prior to SWFWMD projections for 2013 are linear between 2010 and SWFWMD Notes (Polk County) 1) Quantities derived from the 2003 Water Supply Assessment used to populate the demands for the 2006 RWSP. See the Appendix to Chapter 4 of the Regional Water Supply Plan ( 2) Quantities derived from the Small Permit Breakdown Spreadsheet (supplement to the 2003 Water Supply Assessment). These quantities are only rough estimates, as our current methodology only takes into account those permits larger than 500,000 gpd. All remaining permits from 100,000 to 499,999 are grouped into the small utility category. CFCA Final Report January

36 3) Quantities derived from the Small Permit Breakdown spreadsheet (supplement to the 2003 Water Supply Assessment). These quantities are only rough estimates, as our current methodology combined all of the Polk County Utilities permits and then calculated future demand. Each permit was not looked at individually. It should also be noted that permit # 2658 was included as part of Polk County for the 2003 Water Supply Assessment in the 2006 Regional Water Supply Plan. However, it is not listed in this spreadsheet. This is because the permit was later transferred to Lake Alfred and then combined into one permit. Therefore, the demands for Polk County as a whole in this spreadsheet will not equal the Polk County demands listed in the Water Supply Assessment. See the Appendix to Chapter 4 of the Regional Water Supply Plan ( 4) Demands for 2000 are adjusted and will not match the actual reported withdrawal for that year. The 2000 demands were adjusted using 2001 per capita, in order to keep the per capita constant throughout the planning horizon. 5.) Mountain Lake Corp has a permitted quantity for 3.65mgd; however, most of the permitted quantity is for environmental mitigation. Some SWFWMD permits have been updated soley for the purpose of this CFCA exercise. The data being used cannot be compared to the 2006 Regional Water Supply Plan. Source data came from various points & 2004 Estimated Water Use Report, 2005 Public Supply Permittee Survey Reports, BEBR Population of Estimates, February CFCA Final Report January

37 Appendix C Alternative Water Supply Development Projects CFCA Final Report January